How many eligible heiresses would like be available during the Uther period? There's a list in the books, of course, but I doubt it's exhaustive. Or is it? The rules are specific about the number of knights, and I'd like to have some guidelines for working out the number heiresses during this—or any other—period. Does 6+2d6 seem reasonable? Also, I would imagine that the Earl's Court would be a magnet for them—indeed their presence would be required at certain times—so the entire roster could be encountered there, yes? As in, there are no more than what you see here...


T.

Many heiresses live at court under the earl's protection. He would also oversee, or appoint someone to oversee, their lands until they married. Those who have survived the deaths of one or more husbands may administer their own lands out of preference, especially if they have underage heirs. Assuming 120 is a typical county's number of vassal knights, a roll of 2d6+6 gives 6.67 to 15% lacking male heirs. For a broader yet comparable range, you could roll 3d6+3 or 4d6 (I might even suggest re-rolling every other year or so). That actually seems low to me, I'd suspect a percentage closer to 20% and might roll 2d6+17 for a range of approximately 15 to 25% (for greater variability, could roll 3d6+13, 4d6+10, 5d6+6, 6d6+3, or 7d6).

Thanks, UT. I thought the average number of vassla knights was closer to 75? Or is that in the Uther period only?


T.

Good question
but
there are so many variables that I'd need more information



How many eligible heiresses would like be available during the Uther period?
Do you mean in Salisbury? I presume so.

There's a list in the books, of course, but I doubt it's exhaustive. Or is it?
KAP5.1, page 56, top left column:
"Many women live in the county, but these are the ones who are available and have the largest holdings--or other reasons to be worthy of marriage to you."

The rules are specific about the number of knights, and I'd like to have some guidelines for working out the number heiresses during this—or any other—period.
3-4, I'd say; with double that many noble women without significent holdings

Does 6+2d6 seem reasonable?
8-18 significant heiresses at any time is a pretty big number
unless it's the same 13+/-5 or so, none of whom get married. :)
which is actually possible

Also, I would imagine that the Earl's Court would be a magnet for them—indeed their presence would be required at certain times—so the entire roster could be encountered there, yes?
Heiresses are never on their own. They are always under the wardship of a male noble. The land is tended by a custodian/escheator, while the widow is a ward of the court.
ESCHEAT
Whenever an heir dies, his lord (or the king) takes control of the estate through a custodian. The whole estate is investigated so see if any cheating was done, if the estate was mishandled, etc. The king or lord keeps control of the estate for the whole time that the widow is unmarried--a good incentive to keep her single!
The king or lord may sell this wardship to someone else, who will then take care of the lady and reap the profits of her land. When someone wants to marry the woman he pays a fee (relief, I think it is called) to her custodian for the right.
All of this to say: "magnet" implies a choice. They have none. (at this stage especially)
However, the count often takes care of these women, so yes, they would likely all be at court.

As in, there are no more than what you see here...
I presume you want to make this a sort of contest in choosing wives from among heiresses. Rather than seeking an official number (which I'd plug at 1d6 under normal conditions) I would calculate how many different sorts of individuals I want to tempt the player with, and draw up that many.
Also, after a battle or war, the number of heiresses is often higher than normal.

Assuming 120 is a typical county's number of vassal knights


120 vassals knights!
Modron's stone, that is huge!
Where did that number come from?

120 vassals knights!
Modron's stone, that is huge!
Where did that number come from?


Book of Armies page 14 implies that a county would have 250 knights. Presumably most of them vassal knights?

We really need the Book of Barons.

[quote author=Greg Stafford link=topic=1373.msg10877#msg10877 date=1319557713]
Book of Armies page 14 implies that a county would have 250 knights. Presumably most of them vassal knights?

You know you get extra Glory when you quote page numbers, right?
But I dont' see this on page 14 of BoB or BoA.


We really need the Book of Barons.

Coming soon
It's been a hella education for me to read some of these books :)
but I feel confident now, in the base line
for instance,
Baron
Forty barons are King Uther’s warlords. (This includes the 6 upper nobles). They are the backbone of the feudal system. They are called tenants-in-chief, with “tenants” in the sense of occupant, and “chiefs” in the sense of leaders.
Count
Three Counts exist, of Salisbury, Bedegraine, and Caercolun. The title comes from Roman times, comes, which roughly means “regional leader.” Long ago Emperor Maximus created the office of comes, and made him responsible for local military defense. More recently Aurelius Ambrosius recognized the remaining counts with their ancient privileges, within his new standards of law.
Duke
Four dukes hold office. This is the post-Roman dux, not the mighty Dukes of later periods. The dux is a military leader for a region. Each duke leads a small, very mobile professional army, who are joined against invaders by the local armies of barons and counts, and royal levy.
The office as set up by High King Aurelius was supposed to be temporary, but through political machinations the Dukes of Lindsey and Caercolun both managed to hand it off to their sons, and the Duke of Cornwall has become disturbingly popular with the men of his “temporary” holdings. Only Silchester was appointed by Uther.

Thanks for the feedback, Greg, and the insights. Looking forward to Book of the Baron.

Despite our fits and starts, my wife and I are having a genuine blast with the GPC. We're playing 487 next—Naval Raid. She says she's enjoying PENDRAGON more than any other RPG we've played, which is pretty impressive because she really liked the LORD OF THE RINGS campaign we ran about a decade ago (her first RPG experience). She doesn't come from the gaming culture, so roleplaying in general is still something she struggles a bit with. But she's catching on. We de-emphasize the roleplaying aspect and emphasize the concept of interactive storytelling. She really likes all the variety found in this game (fighting, yeah, but also court intrigues, feasts, manor management, the Winter Phase). And she really like Traits and Passions because they can help guide her decisions (and so do I, because there's a mechanism that can nudge her in the right direction without me railroading her). She's set up her family tree in a genealogy program and has pictures of the characters in there and everything. She's really engaged. Thanks for a great game!

Best,


T.

You know you get extra Glory when you quote page numbers, right?
But I dont' see this on page 14 of BoB or BoA.


Yeah! We all want Glory.

But I got it wrong. Book of Battle it should be. Table 1.

A clash involves up to 250 knights, "For comparison": "to all the troops of a county".
An engagement involves 250-750 knights, "For comparison": "All the knights of two counties".
A medium battle involves 2500 knigts, "For comparison": "All troops from ten counties".

All these figures point to 250 knights per county.

I have always used the 75 knights per county from the 3rd / 4th ed rules. According to those books, there are roughly 5000 knights in Britain (as many as there were historically in 12th-13th centuries, as I understand it).

In BoB we instead get (implicitly at least) 250 knights per county, ie four times as many. And "For comparison" for Huge Battles claim that "All Britain has 20,000 knights"; again four times as many as the old norm. Someone seems to have decided to quadruple the number of knights between 3rd/4th ed and BoB ...




Coming soon
It's been a hella education for me to read some of these books :)
but I feel confident now, in the base line
for instance,
Baron
Forty barons are King Uther’s warlords. (This includes the 6 upper nobles). They are the backbone of the feudal system. They are called tenants-in-chief, with “tenants” in the sense of occupant, and “chiefs” in the sense of leaders.
Count
Three Counts exist, of Salisbury, Bedegraine, and Caercolun. The title comes from Roman times, comes, which roughly means “regional leader.” Long ago Emperor Maximus created the office of comes, and made him responsible for local military defense. More recently Aurelius Ambrosius recognized the remaining counts with their ancient privileges, within his new standards of law.
Duke
Four dukes hold office. This is the post-Roman dux, not the mighty Dukes of later periods. The dux is a military leader for a region. Each duke leads a small, very mobile professional army, who are joined against invaders by the local armies of barons and counts, and royal levy.
The office as set up by High King Aurelius was supposed to be temporary, but through political machinations the Dukes of Lindsey and Caercolun both managed to hand it off to their sons, and the Duke of Cornwall has become disturbingly popular with the men of his “temporary” holdings. Only Silchester was appointed by Uther.


You are just wetting our appetite, you know!

Edit: Possibly this should be a new thread ...

You know you get extra Glory when you quote page numbers, right?
But I dont' see this on page 14 of BoB or BoA.

Yeah! We all want Glory.

But I got it wrong. Book of Battle it should be. Table 1.

I see
Rather than 250/county, I suggest first that the average county has (25+250)/2, or 137.5 knights (the .5 must be your extra squire.) :)
In KAP 5.1, page 135 says a count has "at least 50" knights


I have always used the 75 knights per county from the 3rd / 4th ed rules. According to those books, there are roughly 5000 knights in Britain (as many as there were historically in 12th-13th centuries, as I understand it).

Yes, but that is in 530, the setting of those editions

My current spreadsheet says that our best-known Count Roderick has 445.11 (the .11 must be a page :))knights in 485
whittled down to 228.26 (that squire again) after it loses all its outliers by Saint Albans...

So with this assemblage of numbers, I really can't see why there is a question about this! :o
;)

:P

I guess we will all have to buckle down and wait for the Book of Barons, when the truth hidden in your spreadsheets will be revealed.

I tend to fudge the numbers as befits the storyline... After a big battle with plenty of dead knights, the number of widows and heiresses go up. Depending how generous the Earl is feeling (modified by the politics, etc), he might marry some of them off relatively soon (to already proven knights, to ensure their loyalty) or keep them around in court as 'baits' for other ambitious knights.

I think the percentage that the Undead Trout (He of the Stinky Fish :) ) mentioned seems pretty good: around 10%. But I don't really see that as a yearly 'crop', but more of a 'reservoir', needing battles and the steady attrition of years to fill up, if emptied. And only a couple of those would be rich heiresses, with more than one manor. So for Salisbury with about 80 knights, this would come down to perhaps 6-10 heiresses of which 1-3 are rich heiresses. And maybe 1 or 2 new heiresses yearly if there are no big battles, usually counterbalanced by the Earl rewarding faithful knights and such. Naturally, most of the 'turnover' would be the ordinary 1 manor heiresses, while the Earl would be less inclined to lose control of the richer ones. I'd probably roll it as:
- Rich Heiresses: 1d3 (The Earl always keeps one in the pocket!)
- Ordinary Heiresses: 2d6 (if I have no clue) / 1d6 (there has been a round of heiresses married off recently) / 3d6 (the Army of Salisbury got hammered hard just before)

Also, even if they are around, you'll still need to convince the Earl to let you marry them, which might (will!) involve... adventure and derring-do! And some of those heiresses might (will!) actually be widows, with children from the previous marriage...

Thanks so much! This is exactly the sort of thing I was looking for. I love informed randomness! Have some Glory, sir.


T.